Re: [yang-doctors] reference in import statement

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

I agree that this is grounds for confusion. 

My preference would be that we NOT have a reference statement for import, or a comment for that matter, unless the module is doing import by revision. The text of the document is already required to have normative references to whatever the module imports.

Cheers.

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 12:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have just seen this pattern
> 
>   import ietf-inet-types {
>     prefix "inet";
>     reference "RFC 6991";
>   }
> 
> and I wonder how people understand this. From the way this import
> works, any (newer) version of ietf-inet-types is OK to use to resolve
> the import but I could see that this statement makes people believe
> they have to use the version of ietf-inet-types contained in RFC 6991
> (but then this should have been import by revision). I know that we
> had a common practice to have comments before this was possible, like
> 
>   import ietf-inet-types {             // RFC 6991
>     prefix "inet";
>   }
> 
> but then this was a comment, now the RFC numbers becomes part of the
> definition. Should we be concerned about this? Or should we suggest
> to be more clear about this, e.g.:
> 
>   import ietf-inet-types {
>     prefix "inet";
>     reference "RFC 6991 (at the time of this writing)";
>   }
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]